S. N. Sapra ( 1 ) M/s S. K. Sarawagi and Co. (P) Ltd. , the present petitoner, has filed a petition under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, thereby praying the respondent be directed to file the arbitration agreement and the disputes and differences, as mentioned in the petition, be referred to the arbitrator, to be appointed by this Court. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT placed a contract No. 101/65 for the purchase of 1,11,000 M/t Manganese ore. The quantity was, however, subsequently increased to 1,51,000 M/t. It is alleged by petitioner that the quantities, as mentioned in para 3 of the petition, were supplied after devaluation of Rupee in June, 1966. Notwithstanding the fact that quantities of Manganese ore were delivered to respondent after devaluation of Rupee, respondent paid to petitioner at the provisional rate of 55. 33 per M/t on the basis of pre-devaluation rate instead of post devaluation rate of Shilling 83 i. e. Rs. 87. 15 per M/t. As a result of this respondent paid a sum of Rs. 30,91,378. 50 less to petitioner. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, respondent. claimed a sum of Rs. 1,15,736 on account of penalty from petitioner. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT filed a petition under section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 in this Court. Another supplier, namely, M/s S. N. Khaitan (P) Ltd (now named as C. D. Mining and Exports Co. (P) Ltd) had a pending arbitration with respondent for a similar claim. An understanding was reached that whatever decision would be given in the matter of M/s S. N. Khaitan (P) Ltd, the same decision would be applied in the case of petitioner. The petition, filed by respondent under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was withdrawn. ( 5 ) THE arbitrator made and published his award for approximately Rs. 36 lakhs in favour of M/s S. N. Khaitan (P) Ltd and the award was accepted by respondent and payment had been made in the year 1984. Consequent to that, and vide letter dated May 26, 1984, petitioner requested respondent to make payment of Rs. 30,91,371,50 or refer the matter to arbitration of either of the two arbitrators, namely, Shri M. R. A. Ansari, Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Retd.) and Shri Rajni Kant, Ex-Judicial Secretary Delhi Administration. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER lot of correspondence exchanged between the parties. 30,91,371,50 or refer the matter to arbitration of either of the two arbitrators, namely, Shri M. R. A. Ansari, Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Retd.) and Shri Rajni Kant, Ex-Judicial Secretary Delhi Administration. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER lot of correspondence exchanged between the parties. However, respondent, through its advocates M/s J. B. Dadachandji and Company disputed the claim of petitioner vide letter dated June 11,1985. Petitioner has alleged that the disputes and differences, as mentioned in para 10 of the petition, have arisen between the parties. These disputes are covered by the arbitration clause 14, as contained in the agreement between the parties. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT filed reply to the petition. In the reply, respondent did not dispute the existence of the agreement, including the arbitration clause bet between the parties. However, on merits, respondent disputed the claim of petitioner. In fact, very vague allegations have been made by respondent in its reply. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, respondent absented itself and ex parte proceedings were taken against respondent. Petitioner has filed affidavit by way of evidence. ( 9 ) IN the affidavit on Shri M. L. Sarawagi, Director of petitioner s company, filed by way of evidence, the allegations made in the petition have been supported. ( 10 ) CLAUSE 14 of the Agreement dated September 30, 1985 between the parties reads as under : "all matters, questions, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or touching and/or connection with and/or in consequence of and/or relating to this agreement whether or not the obligation of either or both parties under this agreement has been terminated or purported to the terminated or completed shall be decided under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 with all statutory amendments. Cost of arbitration to be borne by the losing party. "i am of view that there exists a legal, subsisting and binding arbitration agreement between the parties. ( 11 ) IN fact, respondent has not denied the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties but has alleged that the petition is barred by time. ( 12 ) PETITIONER has alleged that the quantities of Manganese ore were delivered to respondent after devaluation of rupee but payment was made to petitioner at the provisional rate on the basis of pre-devaluation rate. ( 12 ) PETITIONER has alleged that the quantities of Manganese ore were delivered to respondent after devaluation of rupee but payment was made to petitioner at the provisional rate on the basis of pre-devaluation rate. Petitioner has also alleged that another supplier, namely, M/s S. N. Khaitan (PJ Ltd had a pending arbitration with respondent for a similar claim and there was understanding between the parties that the decision in that case would he applicable in the case of petitioner. Arbitrator made the award in that case and payment was made in the year 1984 by respondent to M/s S. N. Khaitan (P) Ltd. It is further alleged that the matter was under the active consideration of respondent but only on June 11, 1985, claim of petitioner was disputed. ( 13 ) I am of the view that petition is not barred by limitation. ( 14 ) PETITIONER has alleged disputes in para 10 of the petition. These disputes have arisen under the agreement and in my view, the same are covered by the arbitration clause and are to be decided by mean of arbitration. ( 15 ) UNDER clause 14 of the agreement, disputes, differences and all claims arising out of or concerning or touching and/or in connection with or in consequence of or relating to the agreement have to be decided under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. No arbitrator has been named in the agreement. It is thus for this Court to appoint an arbitrator. ( 16 ) THE petition is allowed and I direct that arbitration agreement be filed in this court. I appoint Sh. Ashok Bhasin Advocate as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes, as mentioned in para 10 of the petition. The disputes be referred to him. He shall make his award within four months from the date he enters upon the reference. The fee of the Arbitrator is fixed tentatively at Rs. 5,000.